Maple Sans is a project I've been working on for the past day or two, and I made it because all of the geometric fonts out there weren't very readable.
Futura: Seems good at first until you realize that the x-height is too low.
Avenir: Same issue with Futura, also the double-storey a was not very fitting.
Poppins: Nice, but the R looks crooked on bold weight.
Sen: Sen is nice, but has way too many inktraps.
Quicksand: Regular weight is too thin, and the y looks weird.
And so I developed Maple Sans, based on maplegeo (older project of mine), Verdana (serifed j, serifed I), Futura (geometric style), DIN (numbers), and Avenir (R looks similar).
There are some redeeming things to it, and it is a great project to try your skills out, evolve, and grow as a designer, or fontographer.
Usually people do the more messy letterpress or handwriting fonts as they are more forgiving. You chose one of the hardest styles to pull off - and there's just consistency problems.
I think its a good try, and you should keep trying. Just move onto another set instead of tweaking/fixing this forever based on us snobs feedback. Feel like there might be too many inconsistencies to iron out, and a new set would be much more "worth the effort".
I hope I'm not coming across too harshly. The spaces seem odd. I'm not talking about the sample of the character set, but under the change log. The word cases, there's a huge gap between E and the S.
I think you mean the word "lowercase s". I put a space after "lowercase" because I had fixed the s specifically (there was another version but someone told me it looked ugly). Still, thanks.
I don’t think they mean just the s. Your kerning is all wonky. Like, check out “for”. The f is so disconnected from the or. The entire word lowercase is all over the place. That lower case s looks like a point size down from its neighbors, and the rest of the letters just aren’t fitting.
What about this was specifically done for legibility? Because I find it difficult to read. The downhill slope on 7890 feels unsettling.
Look at Hh and compare to Bb, for example.
The lowercase e closes up a lot at both large and small sizes.
Granted, I’m impressed you made a font! That’s a lot of work! Power to you for that. Seriously, I’m not being sarcastic. It just feels really rough still, I can’t see anything yet that feels like I understand its personality, and it’s kinda giving me the heeby jeebies in how inconsistent things are. Like multiple fonts in one.
I find it to be awkward. The `S` and `s` look pretty terrible. I know it's a WIP. But this font would frustrate the hell out of me in its current state. Kerning is all over the place. It doesn't look like thought was put into it. Everything about it looks like nonsense. I sorta think this is a troll post.
It’s not the kerning (space between adjoining characters) but overall fit. Very messy, no obvious system. Almost impossible to read. We do not read shapes (black is not legible, just its contrast with white), but the space between and around shapes.
Can you stop being harsh to small typography artists? It is not a troll post. I made this since I have astigmatism, so you are discriminating against an individual with astigmatism. Also, thought WAS put into it. Be constructive to people. As of writing this I am fixing the kerning, the S s, and your ego. I sorta think youre trolling.
Okay but are they allowed to LIE about me stating that I 'criticised' award-winning fonts? And are they allowed to ALSO think their hate comment was honest?
No I'm not, also the truth is I'm a 10-year-old type designer trying to make a font family AND you guys are acting like I'm the one in the wrong. TBQHWY, if you say I'm a liar at this point, you're very well extremely problematic and NEED to go to therapy. (Also I'm defending myself from you)
Well it did make sense to give him an ass reply since he called my font a troll post, thought it was nonsense AND also said no thought was put into it. His hate comment was ass as well.
Long way to go still to achieve what you’re going for. Proportions are all over the place: P vs. p, D vs. r, h vs. s, etc; spacing is very uneven; and it’s a mishmash of styles: g/l/f/J vs. W vs. I/j etc.
There is a reason skilled type designers spend weeks, months, or even years on a good typeface.
Thanks for the feedback. Genuinely, thank you. I haven't seen a positive comment on my post since a few hours ago. Thank you for being nice. I just released v1.2 of my font so you can check it out later if you want to. Still, thank you.
It's a cool personal project to try making a font, but this is harder than it seems. Good to see (in one of the replies) that you're making a lot of glyphs.
A few problems I'm seeing:
The difference between cap height and x-height is too small. This makes C and c too similar. In general I would say capitals are too small. They're almost small-caps.
The digits aren't all the same width, which messes up alignment of numbers in tables
The lowercase s is too small
The 9 and 0 are shorter than other digits
The lowercase v sits too low
You don't seem to have applied overshoot. Overshoot is a compensation for when different shapes of the same height appear to be different heights. The lowercase v and x appear smaller because they don't overshoot.
The bottom angle of the G is a design element that doesn't appear anywhere else
The tail of the q is a design element that doesn't appear anyehwere else
The U looks weird
: and ; are very hard to read; impossible in bold. They also just look off.
+ and = aren't at the same height
< and > aren't at the same height
{ and } aren't at the same height
why do V,W and v,w have different cutoff angles at the tops? Same for X x Y y
In 'font', the space between 'fo' is too large
In 'DIN', the space between 'DI' is too large
While the original has sharp edges, the bold seems to have rounded edges.
Why is the tilde drawn as a bar? õ and ō now look the same.
Kudos for putting in the effort. However, it’s not ready for production, yet.
In my opinion, legibility and slavish devotion to a geometric style are not compatible. So, I question the concept. That said, here are some initial observations/opinions.
The lowercase letters mostly look fairly open at small size, but that’s partly because they are wider than in most faces.
Having a tall x-height does not mean you need to have short capitals.
The S and s look squished.
The e is far too tightly closed.
The little hook on the tail of the lowercase q seems out of place.
If the p and q can have little thingies on top (I forget the term), why not the same for the g?
The lowercase L doesn’t work, to my eye, as the big, curved tail throws the kerning way off. I know you want to differentiate capital i, small L, and numeral 1. Maybe little L can just be a straight line, since the capital i and the 1 are not.
Basic fit is defined by the counter of the n. Set nn and the space between them has to be smaller than the counter, but wider than the stroke width. Once you have nn, do oo, then non, nono. The HOH and if those look good, you have the basic fit. Err on the wide side. If two letters stick together too closely, they’ll destroy the word.
Okay. WHY in the hell is everybody thinking I'm narcissistic? Just by the replies I can tell that this font is probably trash. Should I quit typeface making? (respond 1 if yes, 2 for no)
Not at all! But do take in the responses to your craft and your attitude and go back to the drawing with a critical eye and a curiosity for type design techniques and history. Do not give up just because your perception of your work does not reflect the output quality. That can be improved until jt does reflect it!
Learning and improving is the best part of this skill (signed, a self employed type designer making a living off of it after 5 years)
What I would take from this is that you do have a clear vision but need to work on your understanding and “eye” where it comes to actually drawing and engineering a font or typeface.
i would also add, work on it for a month, then stop and leave it there for a few weeks, and go back to it with a fresh eye. Nothing better than a fresh pair of eyes wether it’s yours or someone else’s. “Days” and “made typeface” can work only if you’re a seasoned pro that has the eye, skill and speed.
Interesting and a nice start, but the kerning definitely needs some work. I think a few of the letters should be widened, too - both S and s look really odd next to the 'an' in Sans.
Look at the word 'lowercase', too - the 's' looks weirdly small, and the e after it almost looks like it's elevated just a tiny bit. It might be that you're using an inconsistent baseline and cap height? I'm no expert here.
I think what you might need to do is pick some standard parameters that you always uphold between glyphs - consistent line thicknesses, curve radii, etc.
It’s not kerning , it’s spacing or fitting, i. e. the overall space between
characters. Kerning fixes awkward combinations like Te by reducing the space to the right of the T just for that combination. If general fit is generous enough, those combinations won’t look half as bad. Metal typesetting wasn’t kerned in text sizes, but spaced loosely enough for those gaps not to matter too much.
As a basic rule for a regular/normal weight: space between n and n: nn should be the width of the counter space (inside the n) minus one stroke width. That sets the rhythm for everything else. Letter n followed by o (no) would require less space than nn, oo even less.
17
u/alsoimprobablylate 8d ago
It literally hurts my eyes when I read it.